Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
D.C. Witness Staff
- January 31, 2019
Court
|
Homicides
|
Policy
|
Suspects
|
A D.C. Superior Court judge denied the defense’s request Jan. 30 to sentence two men under the Youth Rehabilitation Act of 2018. Apparently, the men were sentenced under the Youth Act previously and had their provisions revoked.
On Dec. 18, Judge Judith Bartnoff sentenced Barry Giles and Marco Williams to 8.5 years and 15.5 years in prison, respectively, for their involvement in the death of 37-year-old Timothy Lassiter on the 3100 block of Berry Road, NE in 2016.
Judge Bartnoff said that sentencing the men under the youth act was “just too much of a stretch” due to the severity of the crime and the fact that they were previously given youth act benefits.
As stated in the Youth Rehabilitation Act of 2018, youth offenders age 15 – 24 can have their sentence “set-aside” or hidden from public view if the judge deems it appropriate.
Giles, who was 20 years old at the time of the offense, and Williams, who was 23 years old at the time of offense, were eligible to be considered under the amended law.
During the hearing, Williams’ defense attorney, Brandi Harden, argued in favor of her client being sentenced under the youth act saying, Williams’ background is “traumatic” noting that his mother was “strung out” on drugs and that he lived with his grandmother.
“Of course he couldn’t make correct decisions,” Harden said.
Harden also said that upon his release, Williams would be nearly 40 years old and said it would be “cumbersome” on the community for him to reenter the community with no job prospects.Harden argued that sentencing Williams under the youth act wouldn’t be a “gift.”
Apparently, under the statute Williams would have to successfully serve out his sentence and complete probation before the court would agree to “set aside” his sentence.
Giles’ defense attorney, Madalyn Harvey, agreed with Harden’s arguments and added that her client was on probation for a 2017 gun related conviction at the time of the murder. She said that he was technically sentenced under the youth act, but the right was revoked because he violated his probation by being involved in Lassiter’s death.
Harvey said Giles, 22, never got the full benefit of the youth act.
Meanwhile, the prosecution refuted the defense’s position saying, the youth act must be “earned” and given to those who are “deserving.” The prosecutor said the act doesn’t simply apply because a defendant fits the age requirement. He also said that Williams’ was sentenced twice before under the youth act.